OSHA Inspection: GULF SOUTH MACHINE, INC.

Issued

2016-07-11 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-08-04 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $1680.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(3)(ii): In demonstrating that a level of safety is achieved in the tagout program which is equivalent to the level of safety obtained by using a lockout program, the employer shall demonstrate full compliance with all tagout-related provisions of this standard together with such additional elements as are necessary to provide the equivalent safety available from the use of a lockout device. Additional means to be considered as part of the demonstration of full employee protection shall include the implementation of additional safety measures such as the removal of an isolating circuit element, blocking of a controlling switch, opening of an extra disconnecting device, or the removal of a valve handle to reduce the likelihood of inadvertent energization.   On or about February 9, 2016 the employer did not demonstrate full compliance with all tagout related provisions of this standard that are necessary to provide equivalent safety to the use of a lockout device to isolate energy to protect against the hazard of inadvertent or accidental energization such as removal of an isolating circuit element, blocking of a controlling switch, opening of an extra disconnecting device, or the removal of a valve handle.

Issued

2016-07-11 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-08-04 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(5)(ii)(C)(2): Tagout devices and their means of attachment were not substantial enough to prevent inadvertent or accidental removal:   On or about February 9, 2016 the employer did not ensure that tagout devices applied and their means of attachment applied within the facility were substantial enough to prevent inadvertent or accidental removal.   A) Tagout device applied to the Norton 10 X 18  grinder located in the Mill Shop of Gulf South Machine while parts were removed for service was applied using a group lock clasp that could be removed by hand.

Issued

2016-07-11 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-08-04 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(5)(ii)(D): Lockout devices and tagout devices did not indicate the identity of the employee applying the device(s)    On or about February 9, 2016 the employer did not ensure that tagout devices applied within the facility indicated the identity of the employee who applied the device.  A) Tagout device applied to the Norton 10 X 18  grinder located in the Mill Shop of Gulf South Machine while parts were removed for service.

Issued

2016-07-11 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-08-04 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $1680.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(i): The employer did not conduct an annual or more frequent inspection of the energy control procedure to ensure that the procedure and requirements of this standard were followed:    On or about February 9, 2016 the employer failed to conduct an annual inspection of the energy control procedures to verify compliance with the program, procedures and standards. The last known inspection of the energy control procedures was December 2014, which was not documented.

Issued

2016-07-11 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-08-04 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $1680.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(6)(i)(D): Where tagout was used for energy control, the periodic inspection did not include a review between the inspector and each authorized and affected employee of the employee's responsibilities under the energy control procedure(s).    On or about February 9, 2016 the employer failed to include a review of the employees' responsibilities under the energy control procedures as a portion of the annual inspection.

Issued

2016-07-11 00:00:00

Abate by

2016-08-04 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $2800.00 · Current $1680.00 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(iv): The employer did not certify that employee training had been accomplished and kept up to date:    On or about February 9, 2016 the employer did not certify that employee training had been accomplished and kept up to date with current policies and energy control procedures. Employees were last trained in December of 2014, of which there is no documentation. The training did not cover the extensive use of tags versus locks in the facility.